If anyone would like to listen or watch the debate I had with "Church of Christ" pastor Bruce Reeves on the question of whether a born again child of God can sin and be finally lost, then see here.
If one would like to listen or watch the debate we had on the doctrine of election, then see here.
Friday, November 22, 2013
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Denying Arminianism or Hating It?
"We, the ministers and messengers of, and concerned for, upwards of one hundred baptized congregations in England and Wales (denying Arminianism), being met together in London, from the third of the seventh month to the eleventh of the same, 1689, to consider of some things that might be for the glory of God and the good of these congregations, have thought meet (for the satisfaction of all other Christians that differ from us in the point of baptism) to recommend to their perusal Confession of Our Faith, granted for and sold by John Marshall, at the Bible in Grace-church-street, which Confession we own as containing the doctrine of our faith and practice; and do desire that the members of our churches respectively do furnish themselves therewith." (see here)
Historically, the Hardshells despise Arminianism and even those who believe it. It doesn't matter if one is only a one, two, three, four, of five point Arminian, the Hardshells do not want anything to do with Arminians. They consider Arminians to be part of Antichrist, or mystery Babylon, and will not accept them as genuine churches, or have any fellowship with them.
Though the churches who first wrote the 1689 London Confession of faith, and many churches that have since endorsed it, were deniers of Arminianism, they were not haters of Arminians. This is true today with many Calvinistic Southern Baptist churches. They tolerate those with Arminian beliefs in their fellowship and work together with Arminians to spread the Gospel of the Son of God. But, Hardshells want no cooperation with Arminians and look down on them as being inferior Christians. I think this is a terrible mistake.
It is true that there are certain doctrines that are to be "hated," such as the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes (Rev. 2: 15). But, is Armianinism such a hateful doctrine that a church cannot hold them in their fellowship? I think not.
If one reads the writings of the Hardshells, especially in the 19th century, he will see how the Hardshells used very hateful language in talking about their Baptist brothers who accepted certain Arminian beliefs, such as a general atonement. Those Hardshells despised what they called "Fullerism," the beliefs of Andrew Fuller. They even call him an "Arminian" because he believed in a general atonement, yet he was not an Arminian, for he was at least a 4 and 1/2 point Calvinist. The truth is, the Hardshells call certain doctrines "Arminian" when they are in fact not.
The English Particular Baptists who denied Arminianism nevertheless accepted the baptism of less Calvinistic churches, and have some fellowship and cooperation with them. But, Hardshells are intolerant and will not have any fellowship with anyone who is not of their Hyper Calvinistic brand of Calvinism. This is one of the things that makes them into a cult. I do not believe that their standoffishness is pleasing to the Lord. It has not been good for them as a group to have cut themselves off from other Baptists who hold to Arminian beliefs. They have missed out on the opportunity of sharpening iron, of discussing differences and commonalities, and of the good that comes from such open fellowship.
Deny Arminianism, yes. But, to refuse all interaction, cooperation, and fellowship with them, even to the point of being condescending and hateful to them, is another thing.
Historically, the Hardshells despise Arminianism and even those who believe it. It doesn't matter if one is only a one, two, three, four, of five point Arminian, the Hardshells do not want anything to do with Arminians. They consider Arminians to be part of Antichrist, or mystery Babylon, and will not accept them as genuine churches, or have any fellowship with them.
Though the churches who first wrote the 1689 London Confession of faith, and many churches that have since endorsed it, were deniers of Arminianism, they were not haters of Arminians. This is true today with many Calvinistic Southern Baptist churches. They tolerate those with Arminian beliefs in their fellowship and work together with Arminians to spread the Gospel of the Son of God. But, Hardshells want no cooperation with Arminians and look down on them as being inferior Christians. I think this is a terrible mistake.
It is true that there are certain doctrines that are to be "hated," such as the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes (Rev. 2: 15). But, is Armianinism such a hateful doctrine that a church cannot hold them in their fellowship? I think not.
If one reads the writings of the Hardshells, especially in the 19th century, he will see how the Hardshells used very hateful language in talking about their Baptist brothers who accepted certain Arminian beliefs, such as a general atonement. Those Hardshells despised what they called "Fullerism," the beliefs of Andrew Fuller. They even call him an "Arminian" because he believed in a general atonement, yet he was not an Arminian, for he was at least a 4 and 1/2 point Calvinist. The truth is, the Hardshells call certain doctrines "Arminian" when they are in fact not.
The English Particular Baptists who denied Arminianism nevertheless accepted the baptism of less Calvinistic churches, and have some fellowship and cooperation with them. But, Hardshells are intolerant and will not have any fellowship with anyone who is not of their Hyper Calvinistic brand of Calvinism. This is one of the things that makes them into a cult. I do not believe that their standoffishness is pleasing to the Lord. It has not been good for them as a group to have cut themselves off from other Baptists who hold to Arminian beliefs. They have missed out on the opportunity of sharpening iron, of discussing differences and commonalities, and of the good that comes from such open fellowship.
Deny Arminianism, yes. But, to refuse all interaction, cooperation, and fellowship with them, even to the point of being condescending and hateful to them, is another thing.
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Songs Of Perseverance
Here are the lines to "Am I A Soldier Of The Cross" that Hardshell churches sing.
Am I a soldier of the cross,
a follower of the Lamb,
and shall I fear to own his cause,
or blush to speak his name?
Must I be carried to the skies
on flowery beds of ease,
while others fought to win the prize,
and sailed through bloody seas?
Are there no foes for me to face?
Must I not stem the flood?
Is this vile world a friend to grace,
to help me on to God?
Sure I must fight, if I would reign;
increase my courage, Lord.
I'll bear the toil, endure the pain,
supported by thy word.
Thy saints in all this glorious war
shall conquer though they die;
they see the triumph from afar,
by faith they bring it nigh.
When that illustrious day shall rise,
and all thy armies shine
in robes of victory through the skies,
the glory shall be thine.
The author of this hymn realized the truth that being saved by grace, and being chosen and predestined to salvation does not exclude the chosen and called having to fight to win heaven. Also, it is clear that the author is not talking about obtaining some temporal good, but the obtaining of heaven and final salvation. The lines in bold, in the above song, make this clear.
Today's Hardshells think that salvation being of God and by his grace excludes any idea of the saints having to "win" the prize of salvation. Notice, however, these verses.
"Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." (Phi. 3: 8-11)
Notice that Paul perseveres, works to stay true to Christ, in order that he may finally "win Christ." Again, this cannot be something unconnected with eternal or final salvation, or made to refer to a mere temporal deliverance. Further, notice the other language that is coupled with the idea of winning Christ. Paul says that he has endured suffering for Christ, not only to win Christ (an event not yet realized, but one expected in the future), but in order to "be found in him." Again, this cannot be made into a mere temporal good and unconnected with final salvation. It is also a being found in him with that righteousness which is "through the faith (belief) of Christ," or "the righteousness which is of God by faith." It is also in order to "know him" (in the intimate joys of heaven's full communion) and to know the power of his resurrection, and to "attain the resurrection of the dead," or "the out resurrection," or "first resurrection," that is, in order to experience the resurrection of the just. This salvation that Paul labors to finally obtain involves "being made conformable unto his death," which is not a mere temporal salvation.
In commenting upon what the apostle means by "If by any means I, might attain unto the resurrection of the dead," Dr. Gill wrote:
"...but in a literal sense and designs not the general resurrection of the just and unjust, which he believed; for he knew that everyone must, and will attain to this, even Pharaoh, Judas, and the worst of men; but the special and particular resurrection of the righteous, the better resurrection, which will be first, and upon the personal coming of Christ, and by virtue of union to him, and in a glorious manner, and to everlasting life and happiness: and when the apostle says, "if by any means" he might attain to this, it is not to be understood as if he doubted of it, which would be inconsistent with his firm persuasion, that nothing should separate him from the love of God, and with his full assurance of faith, as to interest in Jesus Christ; but it denotes the difficulty of attaining it, since through various afflictions and great tribulations a believer must pass, before he comes to it; and also the apostle's earnest desire of it, and strenuous endeavour for it..."
Further, Paul makes an additional summation in verse 14, saying:
"I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus."
Dr. Gill says that this prize is "...the incorruptible crown; the crown of life, righteousness, and glory, that fadeth not away, (James 1:12) (2 Timothy 4:8) (1 Peter 5:4), styled "the prize of the calling of God"; because it is what God in the effectual calling calls his people to, even to a kingdom and glory, and to eternal glory and happiness; of which they have a sight, though but a glimmering view of it, and are blessed with hope in it; in which they rejoice, and see their right unto it, in the righteousness of Christ, and have a meetness for it..."
The Greek word for "press" means "to run swiftly in order to catch a person or thing" (Strong).
"Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (I Cor. 9: 24-27)
Notice how Paul exhorts the Corinthian Christians to strive to win "the prize." I do not see why this prize is any different from that described in the Phillipian passage just examined. Some believers in the sure perseverence of the saints find it difficult to interpret "the prize" as being the final winning of Christ and heaven, thinking that such an interpretation gives too much credence to Arminianism. Yet, many of these same Calvinists do not think that the striving to win Christ and obtain the resurrection of the righteous, in the Phillipians passage, can be anything but final salvation. But, if the Phillipians passage, which speaks of "winning" salvation, is consistent with the doctrines of grace, then why is this passage not also compatible with them?
It is obvious that the running of the marathon race, or the fighting contest, are symbols of the Christian life and therefore, the prize must be something that is obtained after the race is run, or contest is finished, which must correspond to the end of life, when the race and contest are finished. Paul says that the prize that is won is is an "incorruptible crown." This cannot be disconnected with final salvation in heaven or with the obtaining of immortality.
"Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing." (II Tim. 4: 8)
Notice that the crown is given to the overcomers at the return of Christ and therefore cannot be anything that is received in this life.
Paul says that he runs, fights, keeps his passions in check, all to win the prize and in order not to become a castaway, reprobate, or disqualified, that is, that he not fail to receive the prize and crown.
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not." (Gal. 6: 7-9)
Notice how this verse also demolishes the Hardshell reasoning against the idea that the saints are ever exhorted to persevere in order to be finally saved. Paul says that we should labor in sowing, and not to be weary and faint in that activity, in order that we might reap. And what is it that is reaped by our persevering in sowing and well doing? It is "everlasting life." Now, let the Hardshells who deny perseverence come forward and tell us how these verses do not overthrow his reasoning and belief.
"Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief." (Heb. 4: 11)
Notice that Paul speaks of the rest, or promised land, as that which is yet to be obtained. He also does not think that salvation being by grace excludes the need of the elect to persevere and strive to obtain heaven.
Thus, the author of the hymn cited at the outset of this article understood these verses of Scripture, and others like them, and of how the Christian must fight if he would gain heaven.
Those who God has chosen and predestined to salvation, to receive the prize, will surely persevere and win. God has promised to give them the victory. The victory, though the result of striving, is nevertheless the result of God's grace. Paul said "But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (I Cor. 15: 57) He also said that the gift of Christ, as a sacrifice for sin, is proof that the elect will be given all things, which must include the will and strength to persevere. (Rom. 8: 32) Solomon said "safety (victory) is of the Lord." (Pro. 21: 31) With Christ as the coach of the Christian fighter and runner, how can he fail to win?
Another song that Hardshells sing is called "Palms of Victory," and which also expresses the truth that the saint must persevere to win heaven.
I saw a wayward traveler in tattered garments clad,
And struggling up the mountain, it seemed that he was sad
His back was laden heavy, his strength was almost gone,
It [sic] shouted as he journeyed, 'Deliverance will come!"
Then palms of victory, crowns of glory,
Palms of victory I shall wear
While gazing on that city, just o'er that narrow flood,
A band of holy angels came from the throne of God
They bore him on their pinions, they bore the dashing foam,
And joined him in his triumph, "Deliverance has come!"
When is this "deliverance"? Is it a reference to a mere temporal salvation? The words of the song will not allow such an interpretation. First, there is allusion to Revelation 7: 9 and the saints having "palms in their hands" as they stand in heaven. Also, the last line of the hymn says that the triumphant traveler does not exclaim "deliverance has come" until he has been born by the angels to his rest, and after death.
Am I a soldier of the cross,
a follower of the Lamb,
and shall I fear to own his cause,
or blush to speak his name?
Must I be carried to the skies
on flowery beds of ease,
while others fought to win the prize,
and sailed through bloody seas?
Are there no foes for me to face?
Must I not stem the flood?
Is this vile world a friend to grace,
to help me on to God?
Sure I must fight, if I would reign;
increase my courage, Lord.
I'll bear the toil, endure the pain,
supported by thy word.
Thy saints in all this glorious war
shall conquer though they die;
they see the triumph from afar,
by faith they bring it nigh.
When that illustrious day shall rise,
and all thy armies shine
in robes of victory through the skies,
the glory shall be thine.
The author of this hymn realized the truth that being saved by grace, and being chosen and predestined to salvation does not exclude the chosen and called having to fight to win heaven. Also, it is clear that the author is not talking about obtaining some temporal good, but the obtaining of heaven and final salvation. The lines in bold, in the above song, make this clear.
Today's Hardshells think that salvation being of God and by his grace excludes any idea of the saints having to "win" the prize of salvation. Notice, however, these verses.
"Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death; If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." (Phi. 3: 8-11)
Notice that Paul perseveres, works to stay true to Christ, in order that he may finally "win Christ." Again, this cannot be something unconnected with eternal or final salvation, or made to refer to a mere temporal deliverance. Further, notice the other language that is coupled with the idea of winning Christ. Paul says that he has endured suffering for Christ, not only to win Christ (an event not yet realized, but one expected in the future), but in order to "be found in him." Again, this cannot be made into a mere temporal good and unconnected with final salvation. It is also a being found in him with that righteousness which is "through the faith (belief) of Christ," or "the righteousness which is of God by faith." It is also in order to "know him" (in the intimate joys of heaven's full communion) and to know the power of his resurrection, and to "attain the resurrection of the dead," or "the out resurrection," or "first resurrection," that is, in order to experience the resurrection of the just. This salvation that Paul labors to finally obtain involves "being made conformable unto his death," which is not a mere temporal salvation.
In commenting upon what the apostle means by "If by any means I, might attain unto the resurrection of the dead," Dr. Gill wrote:
"...but in a literal sense and designs not the general resurrection of the just and unjust, which he believed; for he knew that everyone must, and will attain to this, even Pharaoh, Judas, and the worst of men; but the special and particular resurrection of the righteous, the better resurrection, which will be first, and upon the personal coming of Christ, and by virtue of union to him, and in a glorious manner, and to everlasting life and happiness: and when the apostle says, "if by any means" he might attain to this, it is not to be understood as if he doubted of it, which would be inconsistent with his firm persuasion, that nothing should separate him from the love of God, and with his full assurance of faith, as to interest in Jesus Christ; but it denotes the difficulty of attaining it, since through various afflictions and great tribulations a believer must pass, before he comes to it; and also the apostle's earnest desire of it, and strenuous endeavour for it..."
Further, Paul makes an additional summation in verse 14, saying:
"I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus."
Dr. Gill says that this prize is "...the incorruptible crown; the crown of life, righteousness, and glory, that fadeth not away, (James 1:12) (2 Timothy 4:8) (1 Peter 5:4), styled "the prize of the calling of God"; because it is what God in the effectual calling calls his people to, even to a kingdom and glory, and to eternal glory and happiness; of which they have a sight, though but a glimmering view of it, and are blessed with hope in it; in which they rejoice, and see their right unto it, in the righteousness of Christ, and have a meetness for it..."
The Greek word for "press" means "to run swiftly in order to catch a person or thing" (Strong).
"Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible. I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air: But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (I Cor. 9: 24-27)
Notice how Paul exhorts the Corinthian Christians to strive to win "the prize." I do not see why this prize is any different from that described in the Phillipian passage just examined. Some believers in the sure perseverence of the saints find it difficult to interpret "the prize" as being the final winning of Christ and heaven, thinking that such an interpretation gives too much credence to Arminianism. Yet, many of these same Calvinists do not think that the striving to win Christ and obtain the resurrection of the righteous, in the Phillipians passage, can be anything but final salvation. But, if the Phillipians passage, which speaks of "winning" salvation, is consistent with the doctrines of grace, then why is this passage not also compatible with them?
It is obvious that the running of the marathon race, or the fighting contest, are symbols of the Christian life and therefore, the prize must be something that is obtained after the race is run, or contest is finished, which must correspond to the end of life, when the race and contest are finished. Paul says that the prize that is won is is an "incorruptible crown." This cannot be disconnected with final salvation in heaven or with the obtaining of immortality.
"Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing." (II Tim. 4: 8)
Notice that the crown is given to the overcomers at the return of Christ and therefore cannot be anything that is received in this life.
Paul says that he runs, fights, keeps his passions in check, all to win the prize and in order not to become a castaway, reprobate, or disqualified, that is, that he not fail to receive the prize and crown.
"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not." (Gal. 6: 7-9)
Notice how this verse also demolishes the Hardshell reasoning against the idea that the saints are ever exhorted to persevere in order to be finally saved. Paul says that we should labor in sowing, and not to be weary and faint in that activity, in order that we might reap. And what is it that is reaped by our persevering in sowing and well doing? It is "everlasting life." Now, let the Hardshells who deny perseverence come forward and tell us how these verses do not overthrow his reasoning and belief.
"Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief." (Heb. 4: 11)
Notice that Paul speaks of the rest, or promised land, as that which is yet to be obtained. He also does not think that salvation being by grace excludes the need of the elect to persevere and strive to obtain heaven.
Thus, the author of the hymn cited at the outset of this article understood these verses of Scripture, and others like them, and of how the Christian must fight if he would gain heaven.
Those who God has chosen and predestined to salvation, to receive the prize, will surely persevere and win. God has promised to give them the victory. The victory, though the result of striving, is nevertheless the result of God's grace. Paul said "But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." (I Cor. 15: 57) He also said that the gift of Christ, as a sacrifice for sin, is proof that the elect will be given all things, which must include the will and strength to persevere. (Rom. 8: 32) Solomon said "safety (victory) is of the Lord." (Pro. 21: 31) With Christ as the coach of the Christian fighter and runner, how can he fail to win?
Another song that Hardshells sing is called "Palms of Victory," and which also expresses the truth that the saint must persevere to win heaven.
I saw a wayward traveler in tattered garments clad,
And struggling up the mountain, it seemed that he was sad
His back was laden heavy, his strength was almost gone,
It [sic] shouted as he journeyed, 'Deliverance will come!"
Then palms of victory, crowns of glory,
Palms of victory I shall wear
While gazing on that city, just o'er that narrow flood,
A band of holy angels came from the throne of God
They bore him on their pinions, they bore the dashing foam,
And joined him in his triumph, "Deliverance has come!"
When is this "deliverance"? Is it a reference to a mere temporal salvation? The words of the song will not allow such an interpretation. First, there is allusion to Revelation 7: 9 and the saints having "palms in their hands" as they stand in heaven. Also, the last line of the hymn says that the triumphant traveler does not exclaim "deliverance has come" until he has been born by the angels to his rest, and after death.
Monday, November 18, 2013
A Choice Is Made
“O happy day, that fixed my choice
On Thee, my Savior and my God!
Yesterday in church we sang the hymn ”O Happy Day” from which the above lyrics are taken.
Yet this time was different.
It was, along with several other hymns I could name, no longer sang hyprocritically as it had been done dozens of times before when I was part of the “Primitive Baptist” Church.
As part of their continuing journey to truth, I have considered it my duty to point out to my little congregation certain expressions in the hymns we sing which overthrow that false system of which they were once a part. Gospel means, praying for the lost, preaching to the lost, and the perseverance of the saints are doctrines taught in several of the hymns which are sung on a regular basis among the churches. The odd thing is that they are sung without hesitation, only to have ministers ascend into the pulpit and proceed to preach against the very thing which they sang.
“Let us tell them of the Savior…”, yet no one tells anyone of Christ.
”Is there here a trembling jailor…”, looking for a time salvation?
The Articles of Faith are already being rewritten. Will the same hold true for hymns, or will they cease to be sung altogether?
As hinted at by our title, one area of inconsistency in the singing and the preaching involves the role of the will in salvation. As other men have done, Hardshells have over-reacted to the modern evangelistic appeal of “accepting Christ”. While I agree with those men who say that this is not the best way to express to sinners what is really required of them in being saved, we should not cast the baby out with the bathwater. There is a tendency in human nature to go to the opposite extreme when it sees what it thinks is an error. I am quite sure that this has happened in some men’s opposition to decisional regeneration.
One of the biggest steps toward truth which today’s Hardshells can make is to come to see that the will plays a role in salvation. God in His sovereignty does not, as Spurgeon would say, rob man of his manhood by saving Him apart from his will. If the new man is made to believe, then obviously the will was turned in the direction of faith! If the new man is said to receive Christ (John 1:12), then how could this be done without volition of his will? If the saints have “made a covenant” with God (Ps. 50:5), then the will made a choice to do so!
None of this implies salvation is not of grace, for there yet remains the question “How did the will come to choose what it did?”
As one who used to be in terrible error, I can now say assuredly:
A choice is made.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Was S. Hassell Right?
Elder Sylvester Hassell's views on the Gospel being a means in regeneration may be viewed by looking at his answers to the following questions.
"Q. Have Baptists always denied the use of means in regeneration?
A. In careless expressions some Baptists have advanced this error, but the same men, when taking into consideration the entire teaching of the Scriptures on this point, have, in their more exact expressions, repudiated it." (see here)
In the same question and answer writing, however, Hassell says:
"Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3)."
Obviously Hassell thinks that his forefathers who affirmed the use of means in regeneration used "careless expressions" in their defense of the means position. One could take that to mean that Hassell denies that his forefathers actually believed and taught such a view, only seeming to do so. But, this seems unlikely because he says that these same Baptists in using such "careless expressions" actually "advanced this error." But, then he contradicts this statement by saying that the same people who advanced this error did not really believe or mean what they said, affirming that the same people "in their more exact expressions, repudiated it." So, he says that they at the same time both affirmed and denied the use of means in regeneration?
Hassell's apologetic is cunning and intended to deceive the Hardshell brotherhood to whom he is writing. He wants his Hardshell brethren to believe that his forefathers who affirmed the use of means in regeneration did not really mean or believe what they were saying, and that they sometimes wrote and advocated the exact opposite view. Yet, in our series on "What the First Hardshells Believed," we saw that the founding fathers of the Hardshell denomination were very clear and exact in affirming their belief, in harmony with the 1689 London Confession, that God regenerated his elect by the preaching of the Gospel. I have examined all the Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s and 1840s and the writings of the first generation of Hardshell leaders who wrote in those periodicals, and I cannot find where they ever spoke out of both sides of their mouths on this issue, where they ever denied that regeneration was accomplished by the means of the Gospel. So, when Hassell affirms that they had "more exact expressions" where they repudiated what they elsewhere clearly affirmed, we find no evidence to substantiate what he says . Why did not Hassell simply give us those "more exact expressions"?
In my previous posting I cited the words of Sylvester's father, C.B. Hassell, who was very clear and exact in saying that when the elect "are made to believe" the Gospel, "by the teaching of the Holy Spirit." that they are "then no longer under the law but under grace--no longer dead in trespasses and sins but alive." and that this coming to evangelical faith was "their creation anew in Christ Jesus." Now, I do not find this to be in the category of "careless expressions," nor do I find where the older Hassell ever wrote denying what he here affirms.
I cited from the May 25th, 1839 issue of "The Primitive Baptist" where it was affirmed that the Gospel was "the power of God," the instrument "effecting regeneration and implanting in them eternal life." And, in the January 1840 issue of this paper, it is said that the Gospel "actually gives life to them that were dead" and speaks of the "gospel's quickening influence." Are these mere "careless expressions"?
Sylvester, after accusing his Baptist forefathers (including his own father) of using "careless expressions," and of advocating opposite views, being unstable on the issue, offers to give us what he considers to be an exact and careful expression of the question. He says that all the elect will hear and believe the Gospel because Jesus will personally preach it to each of them! Yet, this is not what was taught in "The Primitive Baptist" paper, Vol. 10, January 25th, 1845, for they say, about evangelical faith, that they "know of no other way" to come to faith in the Gospel, or in Christ, "but the way prescribed in the written word of God," saying "For we are told that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and how can we hear without a preacher, and how can they preach except they be sent?"
But, it must be observed how the younger Hassell did not go so far as today's Hardshells, for he was still willing to affirm that all the elect will hear and believe the Gospel. His view, however, was one step away from the faith of his father, and one step short of today's Hardshells. Further, it is Sylvester's father that was clear and exact and Sylvester's statement on the question is what is a very "careless expression."
All this presents great difficulties for Hardshells as it respects their Landmarker views of church succession. Today's Hardshells would say that any church that believes in regeneration by the Gospel is not a genuine church and that a genuine church must come from a genuine church. By this standard, today's Hardshells are not genuine churches, for they have come from churches that believed in Gospel means.
"Q. Have Baptists always denied the use of means in regeneration?
A. In careless expressions some Baptists have advanced this error, but the same men, when taking into consideration the entire teaching of the Scriptures on this point, have, in their more exact expressions, repudiated it." (see here)
In the same question and answer writing, however, Hassell says:
"Jesus is the Great Preacher, and, by His omnipresent Spirit, He preaches His gospel savingly to His people (Isa. 61:1-3,10,11; Luke 4:16-30; Heb. 2:11,12; Psalm 110:3)."
Obviously Hassell thinks that his forefathers who affirmed the use of means in regeneration used "careless expressions" in their defense of the means position. One could take that to mean that Hassell denies that his forefathers actually believed and taught such a view, only seeming to do so. But, this seems unlikely because he says that these same Baptists in using such "careless expressions" actually "advanced this error." But, then he contradicts this statement by saying that the same people who advanced this error did not really believe or mean what they said, affirming that the same people "in their more exact expressions, repudiated it." So, he says that they at the same time both affirmed and denied the use of means in regeneration?
Hassell's apologetic is cunning and intended to deceive the Hardshell brotherhood to whom he is writing. He wants his Hardshell brethren to believe that his forefathers who affirmed the use of means in regeneration did not really mean or believe what they were saying, and that they sometimes wrote and advocated the exact opposite view. Yet, in our series on "What the First Hardshells Believed," we saw that the founding fathers of the Hardshell denomination were very clear and exact in affirming their belief, in harmony with the 1689 London Confession, that God regenerated his elect by the preaching of the Gospel. I have examined all the Hardshell periodicals of the 1830s and 1840s and the writings of the first generation of Hardshell leaders who wrote in those periodicals, and I cannot find where they ever spoke out of both sides of their mouths on this issue, where they ever denied that regeneration was accomplished by the means of the Gospel. So, when Hassell affirms that they had "more exact expressions" where they repudiated what they elsewhere clearly affirmed, we find no evidence to substantiate what he says . Why did not Hassell simply give us those "more exact expressions"?
In my previous posting I cited the words of Sylvester's father, C.B. Hassell, who was very clear and exact in saying that when the elect "are made to believe" the Gospel, "by the teaching of the Holy Spirit." that they are "then no longer under the law but under grace--no longer dead in trespasses and sins but alive." and that this coming to evangelical faith was "their creation anew in Christ Jesus." Now, I do not find this to be in the category of "careless expressions," nor do I find where the older Hassell ever wrote denying what he here affirms.
I cited from the May 25th, 1839 issue of "The Primitive Baptist" where it was affirmed that the Gospel was "the power of God," the instrument "effecting regeneration and implanting in them eternal life." And, in the January 1840 issue of this paper, it is said that the Gospel "actually gives life to them that were dead" and speaks of the "gospel's quickening influence." Are these mere "careless expressions"?
Sylvester, after accusing his Baptist forefathers (including his own father) of using "careless expressions," and of advocating opposite views, being unstable on the issue, offers to give us what he considers to be an exact and careful expression of the question. He says that all the elect will hear and believe the Gospel because Jesus will personally preach it to each of them! Yet, this is not what was taught in "The Primitive Baptist" paper, Vol. 10, January 25th, 1845, for they say, about evangelical faith, that they "know of no other way" to come to faith in the Gospel, or in Christ, "but the way prescribed in the written word of God," saying "For we are told that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and how can we hear without a preacher, and how can they preach except they be sent?"
But, it must be observed how the younger Hassell did not go so far as today's Hardshells, for he was still willing to affirm that all the elect will hear and believe the Gospel. His view, however, was one step away from the faith of his father, and one step short of today's Hardshells. Further, it is Sylvester's father that was clear and exact and Sylvester's statement on the question is what is a very "careless expression."
All this presents great difficulties for Hardshells as it respects their Landmarker views of church succession. Today's Hardshells would say that any church that believes in regeneration by the Gospel is not a genuine church and that a genuine church must come from a genuine church. By this standard, today's Hardshells are not genuine churches, for they have come from churches that believed in Gospel means.
Friday, November 15, 2013
What the first Hardshells Believed VII
Vol 10 of "The Primitive Baptist" (Jan. 25th, 1845)
"Well, says one, how are we to come in possession of that of which you have been speakiing? (belief of the truth - SG) I know of no other way but the way prescribed in the written word of God. You must receive it by the hearing of the word of truth, when spoken unto you in the demonstration of the spirit and power of God, who is the author of it. For we are told that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and how can we hear without a preacher, and how can they preach except they be sent?"
The first Hardshells believed that all the elect would come to a knowledge and belief of the truth and often cited II Thess. 2: 13 in proof of it. But, notice how they say that they "know of no other way" to come to this faith except by the preaching of the word of truth. Today's Hardshells, however, think they know of another way to come to saving faith, one that is apart from hearing and believing the Gospel.
Elder C. B. Hassell was the father of Elder Sylvester Hassell. The older Hassell believed in Gospel means, but the younger Hassell departed from the faith of his father, which was the faith of the Old Baptists. C.B. Hassell often wrote for the North Carolina periodical "The Primitive Baptist," and we have already seen how this paper was strong in its belief that regeneration was accomplished by the preaching of the Gospel and in the final perseverance of the saints. Let me now give a citation from C. B. Hassell.
He wrote:
"On the contrary we believe, the gospel is God's system of salvation for ruined man, and that He saves them by grace of His and not by works of theirs. Kehukeeites believe, that the Saviour took the law place and stead of his people, and for them and in their behalf fulfilled it to a punctilio...This they are made to believe by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and this belief is counted to them for righteousness without the deeds of the law. They are then no longer under the law but under grace--no longer dead in trespasses and sins but alive to holiness,-- having their fruit unto the same and the end thereof everlasting life. This belief in Christ, caused by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, is their creation anew in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that they should walk in; and henceforward they abound in good works to God, begotten by the active principle of grace within them, not from a principle of slavish fear, by which they expect to escape eternal punishment." (March 8, 1845)
Is this not clear? Sinners are not spiritually alive until they are "made to believe" the Gospel. This coming to believe the Gospel "is their creation anew in Christ." Is this what Hardshells believe today? Is this what the Kehukeeites believe today?
"Well, says one, how are we to come in possession of that of which you have been speakiing? (belief of the truth - SG) I know of no other way but the way prescribed in the written word of God. You must receive it by the hearing of the word of truth, when spoken unto you in the demonstration of the spirit and power of God, who is the author of it. For we are told that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God; and how can we hear without a preacher, and how can they preach except they be sent?"
The first Hardshells believed that all the elect would come to a knowledge and belief of the truth and often cited II Thess. 2: 13 in proof of it. But, notice how they say that they "know of no other way" to come to this faith except by the preaching of the word of truth. Today's Hardshells, however, think they know of another way to come to saving faith, one that is apart from hearing and believing the Gospel.
Elder C. B. Hassell was the father of Elder Sylvester Hassell. The older Hassell believed in Gospel means, but the younger Hassell departed from the faith of his father, which was the faith of the Old Baptists. C.B. Hassell often wrote for the North Carolina periodical "The Primitive Baptist," and we have already seen how this paper was strong in its belief that regeneration was accomplished by the preaching of the Gospel and in the final perseverance of the saints. Let me now give a citation from C. B. Hassell.
He wrote:
"On the contrary we believe, the gospel is God's system of salvation for ruined man, and that He saves them by grace of His and not by works of theirs. Kehukeeites believe, that the Saviour took the law place and stead of his people, and for them and in their behalf fulfilled it to a punctilio...This they are made to believe by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, and this belief is counted to them for righteousness without the deeds of the law. They are then no longer under the law but under grace--no longer dead in trespasses and sins but alive to holiness,-- having their fruit unto the same and the end thereof everlasting life. This belief in Christ, caused by the teaching of the Holy Spirit, is their creation anew in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that they should walk in; and henceforward they abound in good works to God, begotten by the active principle of grace within them, not from a principle of slavish fear, by which they expect to escape eternal punishment." (March 8, 1845)
Is this not clear? Sinners are not spiritually alive until they are "made to believe" the Gospel. This coming to believe the Gospel "is their creation anew in Christ." Is this what Hardshells believe today? Is this what the Kehukeeites believe today?
Sunday, November 10, 2013
What the first Hardshells Believed VI
From Vol. 4 (1839) of "The Primitive Baptist"
"And now, brethren, this will lead us to speak of the faith of God's elect, (Paul to Titus, 1: 1) that which is peculiar to the followers of God, (Eph. 2: 8) with which salvation is connected, which purifies the heart and works by love. This faith consists not only in the belief of the gospel revelation of redemption, and salvation by Christ alone; but, also, in a sole trust in, and dependence on Christ, and the word of his grace, for eternal life, as you may read in Isaiah 36: 4, which reads thus: "Trust ye in the Lord forever, for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength." Then, surely, this faith is worth contending for."
(April 13, 1839, being an "Extract from the Minutes of the first session of the Ebenezer Baptist Association, held at Fort Dale meeting house, Butler county, Ala. from the 7th to the 10th December, inclusive, A.D. 1838)
One thing is obvious from these words of the first Hardshells. They believed that the faith of God's elect, the faith that they all possess, was a faith that involved a belief of the truth. They knew nothing of the kind of faith that later Hardshells invented, a faith that is a mere metaphysical substance, that believes nothing. They affirm that this evangelical faith has salvation connected to it, and involved trust in the Lord. They did not believe that this salvation was a mere "time salvation." Further, this belief and trust is "for eternal life."
From Vol. 5 (Jan. 1840)
"Pray for us, that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men; for all men have not faith. If they had evangelical faith, which is the witness of the Holy Ghost, called the faith of God's elect, working by love, purifying the heart, they would not depart from the traditions received of the apostles." (Jan. 11, 1840)
Notice again how the faith that saves, the faith of God's elect, was an "evangelical faith," a faith that comes by hearing the Gospel. Notice also the affirmation of the doctrine of perseverence, that the gift of evangelical faith prevents departing from the Gospel.
From Vol. 4 (1839)
"...but also his goodness manifest in the descent of the Holy Ghost, communicated through the medium of the gospel to the children of men, and especially to the church of the first born, thereby becoming the power of God, and by that power making Jesus Christ to every believer wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption. And also his peculiar regard manifest in providing a gospel ministry, and through them to communicate the bread of life and cause that river to flow the streams whereof make glad the city of God." (May 11, 1839)
Notice how the first Hardshells believed that it is "through the medium of the gospel" that the Holy Ghost and the bread of life are communicated. Today's Hardshells have left the teaching of their forefathers in denying these truths.
"Together with everlasting love of God the Father, treasured up in the covenant of redemption from all eternity, and thus manifest through Christ the Son or mediator, and made known to sinners through the gospel which is the power of God; thus effecting regeneration and implanting in them eternal life. And hence it is said: And this is life eternal, to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent." (May 25, 1839)
Notice again how the first Hardshells taught that regeneration was effected through the Gospel and that it was by the Gospel that eternal life was implanted.
"But the true believer knows, that it takes grace to save and that it is grace; and that grace opened his understanding, so that he believed that he was a lost sinner, a blind sinner, a helpless sinner, a condemned sinner; all these things are brought to pass by the spirit of grace leading the soul to faith, faith is belief, belief in Jesus the Saviour, who came to seek and save that which was lost; and faith points to that grace given in Christ, that did and does, and will save. This is what is called a saving knowledge, the belief of which is faith and leads the sinner to repent, and that with a godly sorrow, and that godly sorrow works repentance, not to be repented of and that work is a good work; but it was not that work that saved the sinner, but it was produced from a knowledge of his salvation; it produced obedience, humbleness, meekness, faithfulness, honesty in righteousness, and all the rruits of the Spirit, which grow out of the new birth." (July 27, 1839)
Notice again that "faith is belief." Today's Hardshells need to return to the Old Baptist position on what is faith and leave off their modern definitions of it.
Vol. 5 Jan. 1840)
"And that gospel, instead of requiring legal duties of the dead, as a condition of their receiving life; actually gives life to them that were dead--spiritual life to such as had no such quality in them before; divine life, and union with God to such as were really his enemies, and far from righteousness of any kind until it was communicated by the gospel's quickening influence...The law was an administration of death to all that were found transgressors of it; the gospel was, and is the power of God unto salvation, to all the chosen seed."
Again, this is very clear. The Gospel is the instrument whereby God gives spiritual life to the dead.
What say our modern Hardshells to all this evidence about how the first Hardshells believed that regeneration was effected by the preaching of the Gospel?
"And now, brethren, this will lead us to speak of the faith of God's elect, (Paul to Titus, 1: 1) that which is peculiar to the followers of God, (Eph. 2: 8) with which salvation is connected, which purifies the heart and works by love. This faith consists not only in the belief of the gospel revelation of redemption, and salvation by Christ alone; but, also, in a sole trust in, and dependence on Christ, and the word of his grace, for eternal life, as you may read in Isaiah 36: 4, which reads thus: "Trust ye in the Lord forever, for in the Lord Jehovah is everlasting strength." Then, surely, this faith is worth contending for."
(April 13, 1839, being an "Extract from the Minutes of the first session of the Ebenezer Baptist Association, held at Fort Dale meeting house, Butler county, Ala. from the 7th to the 10th December, inclusive, A.D. 1838)
One thing is obvious from these words of the first Hardshells. They believed that the faith of God's elect, the faith that they all possess, was a faith that involved a belief of the truth. They knew nothing of the kind of faith that later Hardshells invented, a faith that is a mere metaphysical substance, that believes nothing. They affirm that this evangelical faith has salvation connected to it, and involved trust in the Lord. They did not believe that this salvation was a mere "time salvation." Further, this belief and trust is "for eternal life."
From Vol. 5 (Jan. 1840)
"Pray for us, that we may be delivered from unreasonable and wicked men; for all men have not faith. If they had evangelical faith, which is the witness of the Holy Ghost, called the faith of God's elect, working by love, purifying the heart, they would not depart from the traditions received of the apostles." (Jan. 11, 1840)
Notice again how the faith that saves, the faith of God's elect, was an "evangelical faith," a faith that comes by hearing the Gospel. Notice also the affirmation of the doctrine of perseverence, that the gift of evangelical faith prevents departing from the Gospel.
From Vol. 4 (1839)
"...but also his goodness manifest in the descent of the Holy Ghost, communicated through the medium of the gospel to the children of men, and especially to the church of the first born, thereby becoming the power of God, and by that power making Jesus Christ to every believer wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption. And also his peculiar regard manifest in providing a gospel ministry, and through them to communicate the bread of life and cause that river to flow the streams whereof make glad the city of God." (May 11, 1839)
Notice how the first Hardshells believed that it is "through the medium of the gospel" that the Holy Ghost and the bread of life are communicated. Today's Hardshells have left the teaching of their forefathers in denying these truths.
"Together with everlasting love of God the Father, treasured up in the covenant of redemption from all eternity, and thus manifest through Christ the Son or mediator, and made known to sinners through the gospel which is the power of God; thus effecting regeneration and implanting in them eternal life. And hence it is said: And this is life eternal, to know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou has sent." (May 25, 1839)
Notice again how the first Hardshells taught that regeneration was effected through the Gospel and that it was by the Gospel that eternal life was implanted.
"But the true believer knows, that it takes grace to save and that it is grace; and that grace opened his understanding, so that he believed that he was a lost sinner, a blind sinner, a helpless sinner, a condemned sinner; all these things are brought to pass by the spirit of grace leading the soul to faith, faith is belief, belief in Jesus the Saviour, who came to seek and save that which was lost; and faith points to that grace given in Christ, that did and does, and will save. This is what is called a saving knowledge, the belief of which is faith and leads the sinner to repent, and that with a godly sorrow, and that godly sorrow works repentance, not to be repented of and that work is a good work; but it was not that work that saved the sinner, but it was produced from a knowledge of his salvation; it produced obedience, humbleness, meekness, faithfulness, honesty in righteousness, and all the rruits of the Spirit, which grow out of the new birth." (July 27, 1839)
Notice again that "faith is belief." Today's Hardshells need to return to the Old Baptist position on what is faith and leave off their modern definitions of it.
Vol. 5 Jan. 1840)
"And that gospel, instead of requiring legal duties of the dead, as a condition of their receiving life; actually gives life to them that were dead--spiritual life to such as had no such quality in them before; divine life, and union with God to such as were really his enemies, and far from righteousness of any kind until it was communicated by the gospel's quickening influence...The law was an administration of death to all that were found transgressors of it; the gospel was, and is the power of God unto salvation, to all the chosen seed."
Again, this is very clear. The Gospel is the instrument whereby God gives spiritual life to the dead.
What say our modern Hardshells to all this evidence about how the first Hardshells believed that regeneration was effected by the preaching of the Gospel?
Saturday, November 9, 2013
A Hardshell Blunder
The Hardshell apologist at theearstohear blog wrote this in a posting in which he takes issue with the learned Adrian Rogers, well known past president of the Southern Baptist Convention. This Hardshell said:
"God’s intent was not to have the love and worship of all of humanity." (see here)
Rogers was discussing the problem of evil and the fall of man and of the angels. In doing this he also discussed the freedom of will that the angels and man had before their fall into sin and death. This Hardshell found fault with this, misunderstanding Rogers, and applying what Rogers said about the will of unfallen angels and men to fallen angels and men. But, in reading this Hardshell's comments it is obvious that this Hardshell does not understand how there are two kinds of will in God, how God can be said to will, and not will, something. John Piper has written on this and I recommend that Hardshells read it (see here). This Hardshell, not understanding this, assumes that since all men do not love and worship God, then it must not be his will for them to do so. This would be true if we were talking about God's irresistable will, or his secret will, or his predestination, but it is not true regarding his revealed will, that will which is resisted and opposed.
Still, it is the worst of blunders to say that God has no intent or command for all men to love and worship God. Let us look at Scripture that teaches the opposite.
"Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Matt. 4: 10)
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." (Deut. 6: 5)
"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." (Rev. 14: 6-7)
Obviously these verses teach that God indeed commands or wills that all men love and worship Lord God. If this is not so, then let the Antinomian Hardshells explain the above verses, and let them tell us how hating and not worshipping God are sins, and are condemned, if it is not an obligation.
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen...haters of God..." (Rom. 1: 25, 30)
"And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk." (Rev. 9: 20)
"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." (Exo. 20: 5)
These verses show that not loving and worshipping God are transgressions of God's commands. And, who can deny that God's commands are an expression of his will? Does God will that men lie, steal, murder, etc.? According to the Hardshell apologist at theearstohear blog, it is his will, and is not in any sense against his will.
In this same posting, the Hardshell also said:
"This is all philosophical speculation with no basis in scripture...he’s not using scripture to make his case here – he’s using vain philosophy that is completely disconnected from the bible’s testimony...Again, this is pure conjecture on his part without a shred of scriptural evidence to support it." (see here)
I had to chuckle when I read these words because this is the very thing that this Hardshell does himself, as I have pointed out in recent postings against this Hardshell apologist! It would be good if this Hardshell followed his own advice.
"God’s intent was not to have the love and worship of all of humanity." (see here)
Rogers was discussing the problem of evil and the fall of man and of the angels. In doing this he also discussed the freedom of will that the angels and man had before their fall into sin and death. This Hardshell found fault with this, misunderstanding Rogers, and applying what Rogers said about the will of unfallen angels and men to fallen angels and men. But, in reading this Hardshell's comments it is obvious that this Hardshell does not understand how there are two kinds of will in God, how God can be said to will, and not will, something. John Piper has written on this and I recommend that Hardshells read it (see here). This Hardshell, not understanding this, assumes that since all men do not love and worship God, then it must not be his will for them to do so. This would be true if we were talking about God's irresistable will, or his secret will, or his predestination, but it is not true regarding his revealed will, that will which is resisted and opposed.
Still, it is the worst of blunders to say that God has no intent or command for all men to love and worship God. Let us look at Scripture that teaches the opposite.
"Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." (Matt. 4: 10)
"And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might." (Deut. 6: 5)
"And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, Saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to him; for the hour of his judgment is come: and worship him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters." (Rev. 14: 6-7)
Obviously these verses teach that God indeed commands or wills that all men love and worship Lord God. If this is not so, then let the Antinomian Hardshells explain the above verses, and let them tell us how hating and not worshipping God are sins, and are condemned, if it is not an obligation.
"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen...haters of God..." (Rom. 1: 25, 30)
"And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk." (Rev. 9: 20)
"Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me." (Exo. 20: 5)
These verses show that not loving and worshipping God are transgressions of God's commands. And, who can deny that God's commands are an expression of his will? Does God will that men lie, steal, murder, etc.? According to the Hardshell apologist at theearstohear blog, it is his will, and is not in any sense against his will.
In this same posting, the Hardshell also said:
"This is all philosophical speculation with no basis in scripture...he’s not using scripture to make his case here – he’s using vain philosophy that is completely disconnected from the bible’s testimony...Again, this is pure conjecture on his part without a shred of scriptural evidence to support it." (see here)
I had to chuckle when I read these words because this is the very thing that this Hardshell does himself, as I have pointed out in recent postings against this Hardshell apologist! It would be good if this Hardshell followed his own advice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)